Romero v. Pompeo
Romero v. Pompeo
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
ELIZABETH REYES ROMERO and, 6:18-cv-01184-MK ROLANDO VAZQUEZ DIAZ, OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, V. □ MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, CARL RISCH, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, DARIA L. DARNELL, Consul General of the Consulate General of the United States of America, Ciudad Juarez, JANE DOE, U.S. Consular Officer, Consulate General of the United States of America, Ciudad Juarez, Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 28) recommending that the Court GRANT defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23) and DISMISS this case with prejudice. This
case is now before me. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
PAGE 1-— ORDER
No objections have been timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de novo review, I retain the obligation to “make an informed, final decision.” Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist.,
708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna-Tapia,
328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections are filed. Ray v. Astrue,
2012 WL 1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for “clear error on the face of the record[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States District Court,
501 F.2d 196, 206(9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, “[iJn the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of” a federal rule). Having reviewed the file of this case and Magistrate Judge Clarke’s order, I find no clear error. Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 28) in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23).is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated nist? of January, 2020.
Quan OLi~ AmnAiken | United States District Judge
PAGE 2 — ORDER
Reference
- Status
- Unknown